Slashdot Mirror
Germany Denies Plans to DoS Neo-Nazis
Over the weekend, we learned that Germany's Minister of the Interior, Otto Schily, was thinking about
DoS'ing neo-Nazi sites
-- not a new form of censorship, but the first time a government has put it on the table. Each country has its own type of
content so abhorrent
that its censorship must not be questioned. If a Bush cabinet member had mentioned that the U.S. is considering ping-flooding Dutch providers of (what we would call) child pornography (nude 17-year-olds), would anyone protest? Soon China will take Falun Gong off the net with trin00 and Kuwait
will SYN-flood rogue sites that show pictures of women voting. But anyway, yesterday,
the Ministry denied such plans,
so the chaotic Balkanization of the net is postponed for another six months. Yay!
My translation of the slug from the April 5 story would be:
Innenminister Otto Schily is considering paralyzing foreign Nazi websites with hacker attacks. For this, the Ministry wants to use so-called Denial-of-Service attacks. With similar methods, hackers last spring blocked out broad portions of the Internet.
And a friend's translation of the April 8 denial:
Schily denies "hacker methods" against Nazi websites
Minister of the Interior rejects assertion his authority wanted to close down Nazi websites with "hacker methods"
BERLIN. The Ministry of the Interior led by Otto Schily (SPD) denied it wanted to act against Nazi websites using "hacker methods." What will be used in the fight against right wing extremism would only be determined by the law, a spokesman said on the weekend.
The story was updated re Kuwait (not Iran) and women voting.
yeah, its only a short step from stopping nazis and child porn, to repressing sites that host Doom wads and unsigned bands!
ban nothing or everything.
like real life, why have laws against murder, its only a short step from that to banning people from going outside after 7pm.
Really, some of the logic expressed in slashdot makes me laugh out loud!
Dude, it can't get more stupid. May be he is just a bit smarter than the darn "progressive" smart a**s, who have no shame to play conspirateurs of the rebirth of neo-nazi-ism worldwide.
If you love/hate the Nazis so much, my Amercian friends, why don't you keep your f* abused and flawed first amendment arguments to yourself and live your racists attitutudes out in your own country, the beloved U.S.A. Who would have ever thought, that I would find in the community of so-called intelligent hackers the most braindead libertarian freedom loving conspirateurs for right-wing, supremacist extremism.
I mean coding is peanuts in comparison to deal with your political, intellectual wrong wiring of "sold-out" brains.
Shily is one of best, smartest, fairest secretary of Interior we ever had. The only one who really has brains and has been uncorruptable to any bullshit from the left extremism to the right extremism.
Exactly because he defended leftist politicial terrorists, who most probably would have been *executed* in the U.S. if they had done the same crimes in the U.S. if they did them in Germany very sucessfully, he will never be braindead conservative who buys into bullshit arguments from anywhere, neither from German based conservatives, nor from U.S. based ultra-conservatives of the Libertarian front. I must say I have never been more disgusted than with the discovery of how flawed the Libertarians of this country are and with whom they are not ashamed to go to bed with.
I don't know about anyone else, but I sure would. I would view our forcing these kinds of "morals" upon countries that don't waste their citizens' tax money on enforcing victimless crimes like we do as an act of war.
It is bad enough that we declare such material illegal to distribute, let alone to possess. There are a number of reasons why I hold this view:
I had better stop here, since even the mentioning of minors having sex probably qualifies as obscenity. Lets see, that's two counts so far, so I should be out of prison in no more than 50 years. Not bad.
Not true. Germany's government is, today, trying to ban a party that it considers "unfriendly to democracy" and has a "close affinity with Nazism."
So yes, Germany can forbid a fascist party if it wants, and for no other reason than its (perceived) ideology. It probably will succeed in doing so in a few weeks, and that'll be a tragedy for free speech/thought. At least it'll expose the current German government for what it is, though.
Everybody else has already commented on the rediculousnes of this post, but they seemed to have missed one:
spray DDT over villages growing Cocoa
Um, DDT kills insects (and is pretty effective at it as well!) Spraying DDT over cocoa fields would only cut down on the Malaria in the region. Now I know that you are going to go off on the US killing all of those poor defenseless mosquitos and trying to eradicate an entire life form (Malaria bacteria) but I can assure you that the people in the region won't mind.
The only reason I can even consider this America bashing is the environmental impact of DDT, notably the thinning of eggshells of nearby seabirds; however those studies have been mostly debunked already and I can't believe that you are basing your otherwise logically sound[1] ranting on this flimsy evidence.
[1] For some definition of logically sound.
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
I read the internet for the articles.
Hmmm...I hadn't heard that there was a War on Chocolate.
Learn something new every day.
--
What is the opinion of China flying recon planes around the US? No problem, with that, right?
thenerd.
The camels are coming. I'm in love.
Nazis have. If you ask them, they would reply that they believe that their system of morality is entirely valid and acceptable. No society believes that it is evil. What you should have said is "don't people have the same morals as me?". It's the same kind of transformation as R.A.Wilson's "War on Some Drugs".
I was trying to be mildly funny (pictures of people voting, ha ha), but skipped Rule 1 which is to make sure jokes have their facts straight. I apologize to Iran. Someone name me a country where women can't vote and I'll update the joke.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
Holocaust-deniers ignore the aerial photographs which do show the smoke from burning pits. Some of these photos, taken moments apart by the planes flying overhead, actually allow stereoscopic views which show, in effect, a 3-D view of the smoke rising over the Auschwitz death camp.
Prof. John Zimmerman talks about these in his essay Body Disposal at Auschwitz. He writes (I'm omitting his footnotes):
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
I'm updating the country to Kuwait. The CIA World Factbook's entry on Kuwait says "Suffrage: adult males who have been naturalized for 30 years," etc. Interesting that after five minutes of looking through dozens of countries to try to find one that denies the vote specifically to women, the only one I could find was one whose government my country went to war to defend.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
Obviously you didn't click the link (which was my addition, not a submitter's). It points to a collection of papers and speeches by my late friend Stig Hornshøj-Møller, who had researched the Nazi propaganda film Der ewige Jude.
Stig had argued, and persuasively demonstrated, that the 1941 Nazi propaganda film is no longer a threat to democracy, and that screening it for young people in particular can help them understand Nazi use of propaganda. And yet the film is still strictly regulated by Germany, to the point where instructors have to apply to the government for permission before using it even in the classroom.
Go check out his work. It's fascinating (IMHO) to see how the film has changed in sixty years from a tool of persuasion, to an object to be feared, and, finally, hopefully, to a historical document to be learned from.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
You're inconsistent: "Considering the amount of teenage pregnancies and abortions..." followed by "...in the latter [16yr olds] case the participants are able to oversee the consequences..."
Apparently they either don't see the consequences, or they don't give a flying, er, fuck.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
have you checked what happened to the tibetan ecosystem after the "great" ddt? ddt is just too damn effective.
--- d'oh
Same old, same old - this is just the modern version of what has happened for ages in the propaganda wars - like in radio, like Cuba today Jams Radio Marti, and then there's China's control over public opinion, etc, etc, etc.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
> The most important thing about selective censorship (which is what we are discussing here)
> is that you need to determine who decides what is offensive.
This conversation is getting too abstract. Even if Germany had decided to go through with the DoS attack, it would have been against entities and ideas that are highly illegal in that country. So in this case "what is offensive" is decided by the law. And it's not really a question of offensive material, but of illegal material. Since German law doesn't apply abroad, they sensibly decided that it wasn't a good idea after all. However, they would be legally fully justified to mount a DoS attack on German servers hosting NN material.
> So two 17 year olds can have sex, but they just can't take a picture of themselves doing it.
What's so unusual about that? You can also breast-feed your baby, or have it lie completely naked on a changing table and apply cream on its behind, yet you'd probably get in trouble if you gratuitously photographed and posted these acts.
In the US we can decide who runs our country (and by extension much of the world) at 18, but we can't decide to have a drink until we're 21.
Most people would not object to certain types of "censorship", such as the fight against child exploitation. The problem is that once you do decide to engage in censorship at all, the line between acceptable and unacceptable is very blurry. I think it's very important to maintain open dialog between policy makers and the public to keep this line on the acceptable side.
> Germany does, in many cases, provided it is nazi material.
Germany is a strange case precisely because of its recent history. It is really between a rock and a hard place: if they do away with the unconditional Nazi censorship, many will take that as being soft on faschism. If they keep enforcing it, many will (and do) accuse them of limiting freedom of speech. I think for the forseeable future it doesn't much matter what they do. In another fifty or a hundred years time might sufficiently buffer them from history to do away with the current anti-Nazi policies.
> so I think we can count this out.
:-)
My feeling also. Don't know about the kicking in doors thing
> I don't believe in censorship in any form, regardless of how much the material might be
> found offensive.
I'm a bit ambivolent about that. There are valid points on both sides. I have a problem with sites like those tracking abortion doctors in the US and encouraging physical actions against them. Freedom of speech should be granted only when it doesn't limit others' freedoms, particularly the freedom to live.
> The flip side is that freedom of speech enables John Skinhead to spout Nazi propagander if he
> wishes - just as God-loving bible bashers are allowed to preach that we're all going to Hell.
> Just as I'm able to proclame my atheism and contempt for hate-mongers - as God-loving
> bible-bashers generally are.
You're making it sound like groups that actively incite and organize violence against minorities and groups that simply spout bias are essentially the same. Most countries' laws will disagree with you, and the difference between the two is usually used as a yardstick of censorship and denial of freedom of speech. There's a big difference between saying that you're a worthless human being, and saying, oh, yeah, by the way, let's organize some riots and gangs and bash your head in and kill you.
Whether you happen to agree with it or not, (which I don't BTW), some people happen to believe this sort of garbage. If people believe it it will be on the net. DoS one site another will spring up. There will always be a dark side of the net because there is a dark side of the human race.
Now, whether or not we should decide to spend tons and tons of energy to fight it is another story. I don't claim to have a good answer for that.
Ben
Ah, so the censorship issue raises its head again. <p>
<b>But of course, we all know that a man like Horowitz can publish his opinion on slavery reparations in an advertisement in college newspapers without any threats or censorship whatsoever. Our wonderfully liberal and tolerant colleges and universities certainly allow any opinion to be expressed, even those of Charlton Heston or Wayne LaPierre.<p>
Certainly, anti-abortion websites expressing the authors opinions of abortion and abortion doctors are not censored or ordered removed from listing.<p>
Or are they?
<p>
The most blatant hypocrisy today is that of the modern day liberal, who cries 'censorship' the minute parents start complaining about books in libraries, but silence and censor any contraty opinion under the guise of eliminating 'hate speech'.</b>
What is the opinion of China flying recon planes around the US? No problem, with that, right?
What, you mean like the russian submarines that have spent the last few decades cruising up and down our coasts? I don't recall us ever sinking one, or taking its crew hostage.
And, god forbid they had an emergency, we would certainly let the crew members see their own ambassador in less than a few days, and return them home pretty quickly. The sub we'd probably hang onto for a while and eventually give it back (as I fully expect the chinese to do with our plane -- yes, it's our property, landed in an emergency, but they can just "keep an eye on it" for a few weeks). Did american subs ever play chicken with russina subs? Probably, but you know if they had crashed the whole damn world would be bitching us out about it -- we would have had a coast guard cutter out there in minutes to rescue both crews.
There is no excuse for holding hostages of people who make an emergency landing, an even less than none for not letting a foreign citizen even see their own ambassadors. People and property are two different things.
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Because, especially in this situation, there is very little to compare between the two.
When you bomb a nazi organisation's HQ, you damage and destroy property (not just the HQ, but buildings around it), and kill people (again, not just the nazis, although as long as they're not killing people, they have just as much right to live as the next person).
When you ping-flood a website, you bring down a website. No-one gets hurt, nothing gets damaged (expcet maybe the pride of a sysadmin or two).
It would be different if it was computers controlling, say, air traffic or power generation that were targeted, but when a website gets taken down like that, no-one gets hurt.
Sure, it would almost certainly damage diplomatic relations between the two countries, but anyone who would even threaten to go to war over such a thing should not be in a position of power.
I acknowledge that such a break-down in relations could, eventually, lead to war, but it should certainly not be anyone's first reaction.
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Why would China care if US citizens couldn't access Chinese web sites?
I can't imagine that a Chinese version of Amazon would do much overseas trade, for example.
I can see the point in blocking eg the American subnet from being accessed by the rest of the world, as that would have some considerable economic impact. However, for countries that don't even use the same alphabet, I honestly can't see it having a particularly great effect.
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
That's assuming that all the packets take the same route to the target, of course.
The best way to DoS a server, imho, would be to use a distributed attack, from a number of different subnets.
That way, not only does the server get hit with more packets (there's no guarantee that one machine will be able to take down the server), but they take different routes to the target, which helps to ensure that more of them get through (as you don't risk taking down any of the intervening nodes).
Besides which, the "worst" that can happen is that you overload a router or two on the way there; you are not going to be able to ping-flood an airport's or university hospital's critical systems in that way, unless they are also acting as a router (or you're really dumb, and fire at the wrong IP address, and the firewall lets the packets through...)
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I stand wholy corrected.
Why? Is it because they feel that pornography is not acceptable but Nazism is?
They censored themselves whilst raising issues about censorship!
I personally have no probelms with pornography but take enormous and personal issue with Nazism.
I find it odd that we can all have sex at 17 (in the UK the age of consent is 16) but killing Jews (or promoting it or excusing it) is wrong.
Hm!
Craig.
What could be next? the RIAA sending a DoS attack to Napster's Database servers? These days, almost any thing is possible...
You can have sex much younger if you like (12 or thirteen), however it has to be pretty clear that it is voluntary (adults having sex with children is definately not allowed but 14 year olds having sex is not illegal perse). Considering the amount of teenage pregnancies and abortions, I think the dutch approach might be a bit more realistic, kids fool around anyway. As for child pornography, I think any western country is pretty intolerant towards it.
However I think there's a difference between 6 year olds being forced to do stuff they don't want and sixteen year olds having sex. You might make the argument that in the latter case the participants are able to oversee the consequences whereas younger children cannot.
Jilles
Basically that means you're in deep trouble if the 12 year old says otherwise (for instance when they've grown up, this stuff happens a lot). However, the reality is that people are capable of having sex from the age of about 12/13 and do so. There's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is rape and adults having sex with 12 year olds usually falls into this category. The intention of the law is that if you are 12 you can have sex if you want to. Mind you, if you are a 12 year old boy and want to have sex with a 12 year old girl, both parties are doing something illegal in the US. In holland it is either rape (always illegal, no matter what age) or just two kids fooling around (in which case we teach 'em to use condoms).
Jilles
- I think lots here would protest that scenario
- age of sexual consent varies from state to state in the US
-earlier age of consent doesn't necessarily make for a freer society. It makes kids freer earlier.
Nex
Afghanistan? The Taliban doesn't seem to like women doing anything...
Really, any government with an official religion is worthy of mocking, take your pick.
First, Red China is not blocking me so it's not an universal POV.
Second (and most important) most of the Net's backbone is private property. Why would any corporation hurt its profits for a measly and improductive anti-censorship statement by only a few customers ?
Seriously though you Americans are amazing. Always asking for fewer rules when you gain from it (usually detrimentally to others) and asking for more when the lack thereof bothers you. Couldn't you be consistent for a while?
-- Colin
The countries that attempt to censor net content of any sort should be blocked by the rest of the net, at the peering routers level. This ought to be a peering requirement. We know Red China is censoring us - we should simply block all of their sites from visibility to the rest of the fscking world! They might get a clue in about ten years,... maybe.
But this is easier said than done, unfortunately. Suppose you run a node router connecting to many other nodes. You forward all the traffic you get. How will you know what any of your peered routers drop? You won't, unless you implement a traffic logging server that compares requests against responses. Even then, you'd have to have a way to figure out which were real requests versus errors, an impossible or at least very difficult and error prone task. Most peering routers won't even attempt to do this at all.
Countries are going to get away with this short sighted censorship, at least until protocols and DNS management schemes are improved to catch it. Oh well, I don't really have anything to say to or hear from osama@bin_ladin.org, anyway. No loss. And people in oppressed countries will always have some ways around the "official" Internet.
But it _would_ help to simply cut the high-speed links to countries known to be censoring network content for political/economic/religious reasons. (State religions are abominations. So are official State political and economic restrictions.) Now here's something George W. might really get behind, if he could only remotely understand it!
tell Chinese they should return their spies
They aren't spies. Spies usually try to discover secret stuff while not being noticed; in this case, they were flying regular routes for years listening to radio transmissions and looking for radar sites. I'd call it (usually) dull recon duty.
Arm the military with dubious human rights records
I don't know what this means, but it sound wrong ;-)
I hope that hot head Bush sends in a rescue mission into China to rescue the US "hostages" and gets his ass kicked with a warhead on the WhiteHouse.
No, you don't. No matter how a rescue mission turned out, it's a good bet that the end result you be a large portion of the planet being transformed into a decorative glass bowl. (OTOH, then I might get my power armor and gauss gattling gun! ;-)
I was about to point this out. In fact a woman recently ran for Prime Minister/President (I don't recall). I think it was Rafsanjani's daughter.
Pictures of nude 17 year olds are as much child-pornography here in Holland as they are in the USA. The "anything is legal there" view on Holland is not entirely right.
Yes, you can purchase marihuana in shops, yes, we're about to legalise euthanasia but child-pornography is still illegal and one would certainly face prosecution if caught.
Doesn't any action by the government against the Nazi sites just play into their whole "Jews control the government" line?
You owe me a new needle for my irony meter.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
That's a wonderful argument in favor of spammers and against the various RBLs. After all, the spam really doesn't hurt anyone, and doesn't cost actual money, right?
Best Slashdot Co
One catch, it's "Free Speech" here in American but as I understand German law, that kind of speech is outlawed. Interest legal problem, there it's illegal, here it's not... but it can be accessed with ease from there. Their ministry has to act (after all what is a law if it's not enfoced) but how do you enforce your laws on someone else's nation?
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
I usually get annoyed when Americans see Europe as one homogenous place. It's 50 very different countries. This time it seems to be a European with the same misconception. Weird!
Anyway, the age of consent is different in every country. In Sweden it's 15.
Someone said that it differs between US states as well. Isn't there a federal limit at 18 though? Or is that only for porn?
You, my friend, are obviously not a lawyer.
Great games
I'm happy to say I live in Antwerp, on the edge between what one might call the Jewish and North-African quarters. Antwerp being the Belgian city renowned for its high number of extreme right-wing voters.
I just take objection to PyRoNeRd's black-and-white statement. A judge won't interpret the anti-racism laws as he does. It should be obvious that the real situation is slightly more complex...
Great games
I hate Nazi actions more than anti-free speach actions. However, I hate anti-free speach actions more than Nazi speach.
Also, I can't spell speech.
Nice, well considered reply there, mate.
Wow, we only have to prepare for these two eventualities? Holy sheepshit Kreskin, good thing you've warned us with your powers of clairvoyance. Genocide so that the "better portion can survive"? Betraying your politcal stripe on that one. Clone war? The human genome hardly provided us with enough information to create people, much less create a race of creatures for us to fight against. Geneticists are even wondering if the genome contains all the instructions to create a human form. They expected to find over 100,000 genes in the genome. Instead they found some 30,000 genes. Other forces must be at work. The beginning constituency of the egg is one area they're looking at. Before you go into the business of predicting the future, do yourself a favor and read up on some of this stuff. I'm no expert, but I can sniff out Chicken Little from a mile.
I tend to agree with Chomsky who said that the speech which offends us the most is that which we must protect the most vigilantly. For, if we allow censorship of those opinions with which we don't agree, we are opening our opinion up to the same attack from our opponents. What you have left is speech which lacks so much in content from the culling of the controversial that it says absolutely nothing at all. In addition, how are we to strengthen our arguments without knowledge of the spectrum of human discussion, even the kookiest nether-regions? If a well-organized attack on your values from a crank brings them down around you, then you have been building your house from straw.
I'll have my battleclone personally deliver the apology.
Actually he probaly is not following the agreements b/c of the WTO, which i'm sure your country is a member of as well.
Regardless of how abhorrent the neo-nazi sites are, if the German gov't tries that, they will find their backbone access to the Internet SERIOUSLY compromised. Carriers will not tolerate that kind of behaviour.....
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
The article states "we" as in people in the USA,
why is this?
I am not an american and is therefore not a part
of "we".
So...
Why does the article writer think that EVERYONE
that reads the article are americans?
This annoys me.
My take:
"Citizens it is time for the national lottery. In these democratic times we must democracy to rid ourselves of bad things. And the results are in. With an overwhelming 1,234,567,890 votes, the Neo-Nazi Hall of Fame site is tonight's winner. Already cybertroops are flooding the site's computers. And they're off...
And now for a message from our sponsor.
For great Justice - Use BackOrifice 2000 (popular cracking and remote system control hijacking tool as well as a legit remote admin tool).
"
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Really, some of the logic expressed in slashdot makes me laugh out loud!
Irony thou wicked beast!
Murder is much more clearly defined than hate crime.
And banning murder is much more clearly defined than the intent in censorship.
And you're confusing banning with enforcement.
Banning hate speech, even more so censoring it, is still a matter of trying to enforce the ban on murder. It has no value in and of itself.
Banning murder has a very clear value and intent.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
The net will evolve to route around it. Preventing DDOSes is pretty straight forward when you get right down to it and they're noticably hard on the network outside the site they're attacking, as well as the sites under attack. While it currently takes more effort than it's usually worth to trace a DDOS (Unless you're a multi-millon dollar company) the routers WILL evolve to the point where an attack is automatically detected and shut down near the source.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
They talked a lot about Rights of Expression also. Get this - it doesn't apply to criminals, and Nazis and racists are criminals.
Dissenting opinions will be stamped out like the vermin they are, eh? Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer.
Oops, in retrospect my post appears that it may be a little trollish to the Germans here, so I apologize if I gave needless offense. I was reacting to my rage against thought-crime attitudes, not the German/Naziism issue in particular. So, instead let me say, it is not anyone's business whom if anyone I choose to hate, love or feel indifferent toward. Get out of my head, you do not belong in there. The one thing I hate and fear most is someone trying to tell me what to hate and fear. There, maybe that's a little more clear.
> Unless it's a communist party which proposes a revolution to create a communist state like in the > USSR.
No, this is wrong. The KPD was/is not allowed in Germany.
Please prove us that the goals of the PDS are against the Grundgesetzt (Germany's constitution).
However, democracy has the property that it can be self-destroying. Dictatorships never have the cunning idea to disband themselves, but democracies have voted to accede absolute power. (Case in point - in Germany, IIRC August 1934, 'The Enabling Law' (don't know the proper German name for it, sorry) was passed by a _95%_ vote and giving absolute power to Adolf Hitler...).
True.
If we allow anti-democratic forces freedom of expression there is a risk that they might take over and destroy democracy.
But that is a risk that we, IMHO, have to take. Because if we don't, then we have already lost democracy. It is then not a possibilty but a certainty.
And don't say that we should only censor nazis and the like. Restrictions in freedom of speech, once they are in place, always get abused, always get extended to more groups... and to still more... because they easily can, and because politicians can't resist.
The sad truth is that freedoms are very easily taken away, but very hard to recover.
Accepting the existence and expression of ideas repugnant to ourselves, and the risk inherent in this, is the price we have to pay for our freedom.
/Dervak
Each country has its own type of content so abhorrent that its censorship must not be questioned.
There is no form of censorship which cannot be questioned.
> As is any religion with an official religion...
We here in Holland have 'cyber-cops' to deal with child pornography, these guys aren't exactly eating out of their noses, I mean, we try by all means to fight kiddy porn, a ping flood is going to hurt any dutch internet user - this is not going to happen without the US becoming an enemy for one of its allies.
Bizar technology?
Some Ministry not knowing what it actually might mean says that they will try to deny an internet service to nazis meaning that they will ask ISPs to cut them off and some ultra extremist geek makes it into DoS attacks. Nothing new... No story here, really. Birng some REAL news, please.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Why is every babeled translation considered informative? 'The German law causes itself however out'? What a crap.
Censorship on Slashdot
Even the government wanted to forbid a fascist party and it couldn't.
What are you referring to? IIRC two parties have been forbidden, the DKP and the SRP.
Censorship on Slashdot
However, they would be legally fully justified to mount a DoS attack on German servers hosting NN material.
The German police is much more comfortable kicking in doors than in mounting DoS attacks, so I think we can count this out.
Censorship on Slashdot
Why is every babeled translation considered informative?
Because then people don't have to manually Babel it themselves, thereby saving them time.
So it's just basic karma whoring.
However, which of the following do you understand better?
Well, since you have asked, the German one.
Censorship on Slashdot
All right, but it's not the government that forbids parties, it the german constitutional court.
I see. yes, that's probably what he meant. The idea that parties would be verboten at the government's whim is so strange that I didn't get it.
Censorship on Slashdot
And the judges who sit on the constitutional court are appointed by the government - not elected by the people.
I count ourself lucky for that.
Pretty much sounds like the CDU et al can ban whoever they want with rules like that.
Pretty much sounds like you heard the name of a german party without knowing anything else about anything. Just think of the crosses-in-classrooms decision.
Censorship on Slashdot
Why is every babeled translation considered informative?
Because then people don't have to manually Babel it themselves, thereby saving them time.
'The German law causes itself however out'? What a [load of?] crap.
Yes, I know Babel mangles most things (especially German). However, which of the following do you understand better?
[German] Wer die Angriffe für das Innenministerium durchführen soll, ist noch nicht bekannt.
[Babelled] Who is to execute the attacks for the ministry of the Interior, is not well-known yet.
Sure, it ain't English good, but it gets across the point...
--
Uh...wrong.
But thank you for being a reactionary socialist stooge.
Naziism is merely a prop. A farce. All black and red and the flags with spiders on them. Just like red neck confed flag moronics, klanslime robes and imperial hoo-hah, whatever perversion of Islam is the flavor of the day, or Khmer Rouge black-pajama parties.
Right of Expression APPLIES TO EVERYONE. Every hate blighted imbecile, every innocent child, every ignorant prole (whom you must be very devoted in shepherding...right?), every scholarly poet warrior of thought and grace and reason.
Darwinism. Those societies that believe the muck and slime of humanity and their racist cultural bile get crushed: Germany. Cambodia. Or they collapse and decay and are stifled by their idiocy: Afghanistan. Iran. Rwanda. Israel.
Those societies that preserve expression while attempting to punish criminal action can endure, and get the opportunity to develop and progress: South Africa, United States, Chile. You can namby pamby and proclaim that some countries exist in the fourth category: true enlightenment unencumbered by racist slime. Sweden? Denmark? Nope. The best are in the third category. Smaller countries have no where near the crossracial and cultural mixes that can foster such racist bullshit. But they never view oppressing expression as "progress". Free societies allow dissent and punish criminality. Oppressive societies succumb to either tyranny over expression or nihilist racist warfare. I'll risk the volatility of the free society.
Historically, there have been times when it was unlawful to be wandering about off your own property after dark. The legal term (in English) was "noctavigation".
"Bite me, it's fun!" - Crowe T. Robot
Yeah, what would we do without all those wonderful hamburger recipes on the web? I'd be lost without the instructions, hamburgers being a complex food to make and all...
This is what I've been fearing since the first time I've heard of a government attempting to take a site off the air that it disagrees with. This, if left unchecked, will mean the absolute end of the internet as a way to get all sides of the issues, all means of research and all ability to have honest and open discussion of any topic.
A government may have to limited right to decide what can/will be distributed within it's borders, but that does NOT mean it has the right to cross political boundries and attempt to tell the rest of the world what it can and cannot have out on it's pages.
The US is horrible with this and that is not helped by other countries who run hollering for the US to 'do something' about purely internal matters within a country.
Just because you do not like the message does not mean you have the right to silence the messenger. I wish all governments would understand that and allow honest discourse about all subjects.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
Censorship and control of information is a slippery slope to dictatorship and persecution or worse.
Plus can they really hide this from their people? I mean, geez, with wireless coming on?
Aide: Grant drinks too much to command an army. Lincoln: Find out what he drinks and give it to my other generals!
Bull. His banning has nothing to do with the "detail", but with its violent behavior toward a female deputy during an election campaign.
Is it just me or is history starting to repeat itself in the new age?
Yeeeeeah!
That's what the Internet was created for: keeping crucial installations running in the event of nuclear war. You don't get much more into "lives at risk" than that. You've probably parroted or at least heard the saying: "the Internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it". This comes from the fact that the Internet interprets damage as, well, damage, and routes around it. TCP is designed for reliability.
Many people have been brainwashed to believe the Interet is unreliable. It is not. Web sites are singularly bad at being fault-tolerant, due to being the single point of failure. Most instant messaging programs are pathetically fragile, due to having to go (unencrypted, no less) through the provider's server. And sadly, the active destruction of "open relays" destroys a tremendous amount of the usefulness of SMTP. These are just examples of stupidity, though, or of people trading reliability for other factors.
Look at DNS. Or IRC (although most networks aren't set up for real reliability, sadly). I know people who have had their continent's main Internet link ripped from the ocean floor, and they were back in minutes talking like normal. I would have no problem trusting my life to a properly designed and implemented Internet-based system.
Please explain to me what any of this has to do with the Internet. The only thing I can see as remotely relevant is "other means of communication". Well duh. But the Internet is likely the best, most efficient, and sometimes the only realistic way of transmitting certain information. Say you've got a hospital with MRI images, and they've got an expert from somewhere else helping them perform this crucial operation. How else would you suggest they transmit the data? By fax?
Now, if your network is set up right, you will have redundant links, and a decent admin should be able to block many of the bogus packets at the main routers. But if the attacking country is serious, they will likely go after all of these, and do their best to avoid being filtered. Flooding the networks with garbage is one of the few ways to really damage the Internet. If someone started DoSing my country, I would absolutely consider it an act of war.
--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Well, there's always something called freedom of speech; it's not up to the German minister go around on the internet like a real hauptstormbahnfuhrer, and blocking all sites that he doesn't like. The only way to deal with these situations is through the proper international legal channels, no country should be their own judge in these matters. I mean what would be next:
Wouldn't this be a act of war?
If Sweden doesn't like nazis in german and we throw a few bombs on their hq's, German certanitly would consider that as an act of war. Why then should not a ping-flood be an act of war?
Scandinavian countries have State Church. You're made a member when you're born, but you can resign from it at the age of 18.
Actually, you're a member of the church only if your parents belong to the church, at least in Finland. There are two 'state churches', which means that those religious organisations have the right to collect taxes (via government). As an atheist I must admit though that I am not too knowledgeable on these religious issues.
I wonder what the situation is in Sweden, Norway and Denmark? Separation of church and state has been an on going debate for decades and I believe at least Sweden has taken some steps. Am I misinformed?
Yep, this is news from the Linus' former home. Just in case someone only happens to think of islamic countries when they hear of 'state religion'.
And, when I was in Poland this summer, me, a cousin or two, and several friends beat the shit out of a group of nazi's that were spray painting swastikas on some buildings. (The police came but did not intervene - that was cool, kinda chilling, but cool.)
I despise nazis, or skinheads, or any other of these "master race bullshit" type groups, this includes cults.
Said that.. Bring on the flame thrower.
What the hell is this about
"I want to know why so many
Seriously, I don't think this is going on, I haven't seen somebody with a sig that read "fucking kikes must die" or some similar garbage, nor posts to that effect
Seriously, the german government is a bit too ansty in its patrolling of Neo-nazi groups.
I can understand the bit about not having groups of this shit form up, but you can't play wolfenstein? a game where the object is to KILL the nazi's (I hope everybody realized that in 199?...)
And as for ideas, oh boy, we white folks have a long and proud history of mass murder; Hitler was a small fish when it came to psycopaths in office.
The big boys were;
Stalin (probably the biggest, in history perhaps, pretty quiet coverage of this, dunno why - speculations?-)
The british during their "expansionist" days, stopped about ww2 ish, though they still routinely engaged in torture of civilians, and treated some people (cough, blacks, cough) as VERY inferior people.
Whoever (lotsa people play in this one, including the US govt), pretty much exterminated the Indians from north america. I seem to recall plagues and bounties for scalps, among other things.
These things (and more, I have to go to sleep sometime) were all fucking terrible. In most cases MANY times worse then World War II as a whole!
Please, please, don't be so naive.
Hitler was not as bad as some of his fellow psycopathic murderers.
Ironically, if you mention the Roman Empire, or Ghengis Kahn, etc... people seem to be cool with it.
Ok, free speech. Most
So, when they read stories about palestinian protestors getting killed by israili's, they develop a certain attitude - " Oppressive israli's" etc... Same thing with the hostility to the police (and, I theorize, to most authority figures, including their own bosses, whatever)
Look - The Israili government has fired fucking ANTI TANK ROCKETS at palestinian government members that spoke out against the war. Yeah, the palestinians are shelling / carbombing, but the current "tally" is
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010409/wl/isr
Monday April 9 4:49 PM ET
Since the violence erupted on Sept. 28, 462 people have been killed, including 379 Palestinians, 64 Israeli Jews and 19 others.
Its a day old, methinks 2 palestinians have been added to the list. One cop and one doctor.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010410/wl/mid
Perhaps stories like that are why there is some attitude of hostility.
To be honest, I was going to throw balls of napalm, but I think more will be accomplished this way.
Please, don't raise shit like "anti-semitism", when we (oi! you mean he's a
One last thing -
"Lets all go to CowboyNeal's house with torches" is a crime in the USA
naah, it isn't, You kinda have to prove intent, if you sent him an email that you were going to torch his house, I'm sure that would get you more time in the big house than saying that, and even showing up...
Different story, for later.
Oh well, going to sleep - peace.
I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
The amazing thing is that everybody is happy regardless. it is a welfare state with a very nice guy on top. Democracy is not the solution. It is a solution.
Well, it is off topic, but Iranian women, in fact, do have the right to vote.. and do vote massively. Seems some of those "freedom fighters" do not mind slighting other people as long as this does not infringe on their right to, well, slight other people.
Yep, I think I'm going to start doing it. Easy karmah. Then I can mod the other fsckers down.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
After all, the USA didn't respect Afghanistan's decision to give Osama Bin Laden sanctionary and attacked Afghanistan with cruise missiles. The USA als didn't respect Panama's borders and attacked Panama to arrest Noriega.
So if the USA has the right to take action against countries which harbour dangerous terrorists and criminals, Germany should have a similar right to take action against countries which harbour dangerous criminals, such as the Nazi's in the USA in this case.
Ultimately Nazi's shouldn't be given sanctionary in any country of the world. They are not human beings, but evil monsters that threaten everything the human race in all it's hues and colours stands for. Even their mere existance is an affront to humanity and all decent societies.
They should be stomped on severely.
That means, it is illegal to question the *UNIQUENESS* of the Holocaust. So if you do a research about Stalin's genocides of the '30s and state that they were "as bad as the Holocaust" or heaven forbid " worse than the Holocaust" then you go to jail as well.
Even studying them in any detail that takes the limelight from the Holocaust as worst genocide in world history would be dangerous.
Of course, "admittedly" is the key word here. The German govt was plain stupid in leaking their plans. If Dubya wanted to DoS me, I'd probably have no way of knowing it was ordered by him.
Jordan is a fairly benevolent dictatorship.
King Hussein died, and his son hasn't changed much at all... He's mostly playing the role of a lurker, watching and learning. I don't think he's changed much of anything in the year he's been in power.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Boa tarde.
To say it in advance I'm a child of one who experinced the Nazis as rulers in his infancy and what I don't understand why those guys are called "Neo"-Nazis? Neo which is old-greek (or was it latin?) and means "new".
There is nothing NEW on those poeple. Nazis stay Nazis and those are nothing more than intolerant a**h*les and racists.
And if you look on what they "worship", well Hitler would be now around 120 years old.
So where they DO they life in world of globalisation, expect than in the past?
And to stay at one place/time means to stop and stillstand means (in manner of life) death.
One sentence to think about, out of an campange here against such people:
We are all forgeiners, nearly everywhere.
(Wir sind alle Ausländer, fast überall)
Ciao
Darknase
--- Ciao Darknase
Yeah, like we need *you* guys to come and drop bombs everywhere... Just like the Gulf...
You couldn't hit a barn door at 30 feet unless it had a UN flag on it.
</FLAME>
Actually, I see it as Europe being occupied by a hostile power. In much the same way as, for example, Afghanistan was "protected" by the USSR.
I certainly would. I find the whole idea of child pornography repellent, but in Europe, sex is legal at 16. Sorry Americans, we're just plain free-er thinking than you. If you don't like what we do, it's your problem, not ours.
I think the Free Network project a.k.a. Freenet is a technical method of keeping speech free as it should be.
And please don't force racists into learning about (avoiding) DoS attacks... I like 'em the way they are - low IQ, ignorant, centuries behind in ideas, some more in evolution - makes 'em easy to spot.
...a fact which for the sake of a quiet life most people tend to ignore ~H2G2
I remember hearing about it on CNN.
Keeping
I think one of the greatest aspects of the net is that speech is free even for unpopular ideas.
I am personally leaning politically left and find the (neo)nazi propaganda abhorrent and intellectually dishonest. Yet, I would not start censoring the net because preventing discussion has never stopped an ideology from spreading.
Much better an alternative is to let these people spew out all the crap they want and counter it with reasonable argumentation (by posting to newsgroups or starting a anti-nazi website). Yes, it probably won't change their minds but it make a difference to someone who's just forming his/her own political ideas.
...why it would be so wrong do DoS Neo-NAZI sites.
Remember our history and that NAZIstic content is against the law in Germany!
- - -
You're partially right. But I think you don't see the fact that sites could only possibly be DoSed by the government if they contained content that is against German law. This wouldn't only apply to right-winged sites.
Why don't most people think before they post?
- - -
Although I find "Holocaust Denial" and other sorts of neo-Nazi crap, as well as child porn, etc. pretty foul, I don't like this idea at all... it's opening up a *TOTAL* double standard... The government prosecutes people who DoS Yahoo!, amazon.com, etc. because they don't like said sites, then turns around and DoS's other sites because they don't like the content. This spells bad news. I dunno, maybe I'm missing something.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
Although I'm not familiar with the laws themselves, I am aware of cases of their implementation, which are far broader than what you speak of. David Irving, an author who has been banned from Germany for works of his which have questioned aspects of the Jewish holocaust has said the following: "The word 'denier' is particularly evil," Irving says, 'because no person in full command of his mental faculties, and with even the slightest understanding of what happened in World War Two, can deny that the tragedy actually happened, however much we dissident historians may wish to quibble about the means, the scale, the dates and other minutiae ... It is a poison to which there is virtually no antidote, less lethal than a hypodermic with nerve gas jabbed in the neck, but deadly all the same; for the chosen victim, it is like being called a wife-beater or a paedophile ... It is a verbal Yellow Star."
And you are correct, the Nazis were very diligent record keepers, which makes one wonder why similarly thorough records were not kept regarding the planning, implementation, and execution of the 'final solution'.
Although no expert in this field (I generally know better than to get involved), it is my understanding that at best, our understanding of how it all came together is fairly vague, due to the lack of documentation, but the blanks have nonetheless been filled in, and promoted as the absolute truth by academics and politicians with their own agendas.
The unfortunate part about this whole debate is that it is so emotionally charged, that almost all participants are highly polarized, aware of only the black and white, and unable to accept the presence or existence of any grey.
If you "hate" Nazis, then you are no better than those you abhor.
If it wasn't from the left wing pretensions, I'd be hard pressed to tell you from the bad guys.
A photo of a nude 17-year old is not child pornography in the U.S. To qualify as child pornography, the image must depict a person clearly identifiable as a minor engaged in sexual conduct, or displayed in a clearly sexual pose. Otherwise, all parents would be in trouble for the baby-in-the-bath pics.
Not to nitpick, but that's egregiously illogical. Discourse is served best when the different sides believe that their ideas are right and are willing to defend them. Saying that everyone should just accept other people's opinions... what if my opinion is that other people's opinions don't count? Would accept that one, also? Or are you closed-minded to that idea?
bush@whitehouse:~$ su
Password:
root@whitehouse:/home/bush# ping -f saddam.gov.iq
PING saddam.gov.iq: 56 data bytes
actually, on second thoughts, bush is probably too stupid to use unix. he'd probably use l33tpingflood2000.exe or something else
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
This is pathetic.
Frankly, sometime, somewhere this kind of stuff will result in another "hitler."
"Nazis are extremly right wing organized "
There is nothing right-wing about nazis.
If anything they are on extreme left-wing ( National Socialistic Party - or something like that.)
To summarize: leftist ideas ( socialism) + nationalizm.
Really ?
So leftwing extremists are incapable of "extermination" or racial hatred ?
I think we need some real wars on the net, to thrash out all the issues people have been avoiding for so long. Every country has a different idea of what is acceptable, but they've all been pussy-footing around the problem. This has to end soon - we're in for some pretty interesting times.
As an interesting aside, any Europeans out there try this: add the line "By the way, I don't know if this is true, but the popular view outside of the US is that the NRA are right-wing loonies. Is this true?" to one of your comments. The ensuing debate by Americans is always quite interesting. But I'm rambling.
Any skript k1dd13 with good intentions can take them down with a simple macro- and the government can keep their hands clean.
Do Neo-Nazzis use Passport?
We here in Germany always have had free speech as of 1949 with the release of the new constitution.
But such ideas always were to come out, though they usually were cut down fastly. Even the government wanted to forbid a fascist party and it couldn't.
IMO it just would create lotta more net traffic, while the target sites just would move.
-mirabilos
--
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
Assuming government X flood site Y. What are the claims for another business hosted on the same box or ISP? Would governments have to legislate provisions against spamming laws so they can legally do it? This could potentially spiral out of control and make the net unusable, with the network being clogged up as people retaliate.
-- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
It's called "Ermächtigungsgesetz" over here. IIRC it was already in '33. The Social democratic Party voted in favor of it, something I will never understand. The "absolute power" was limited to four years, perhaps that's why they decided to do so. Hitler would most likely had his way anyway, perhaps a bit later. Of course, 4 years later, the law was again applied, with all social democrats in concentration camps for almost 4 years...
A (only) 95% vote in favor for Hitler by August '34 would have most probably been seen as a devastating defeat for him, I guess. Almost everybody was brain-washed, dead or in concentration camps by then.
It's "Sieg Heil", Sieg being the plain german word for "Victory". I don't quite get the philosphy of neo-nazis, after all, the "Sieg" was not "Heil" but rather crappy... IIRC, even the nazi officials acknowledged that the russian/slavian man was apparantly "stronger/better genetically equipped/whatever" than the aryen man, and tried their best to destroy anything that was left of Germany by that time(still looking for quotes here, though)
In the past Otto Schilly was a lawyer that defended left terrorits in the court. Now after many years, he is a minister and now he has often very conservative conceptions. He even changed from the green party to the social democratic party, but now he often makes suggestion that were much more conservative, than the suggestions of the main conservative party in germany, the cdu.
Jan
so the Internet has eveel-nasty stuff your country cannot stand, so take the standard "Territorial" action and attack it!
Talk about the ultimate Democratic coup, invade every country with information. The trouble for the US is that it works both ways. There are things that are not-lawfully allowed in the US that are just hunkey-dorey overseas. (notably porn)
Trouble with the who internet is, if a territorial entity attacks a non-territorial entity, how can the former be punished? Perhaps there needs to be a "make-nice" system similar that of spam-email. In other words, if the country attacks another site via the net itself or in court, then the net can band together and attempt a DOS versus that country, or just out right nuke all mail leaving it. Yes it would be pretty damn hard to pull off (and not currently feasible versus the US, but I figure we could get little countries like Iran, and maybe bigger ones like Germany if a collective group tried)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Anyway, just because it's legal to do something doesn't it's *right*. I don't believe in censorship in any form, regardless of how much the material might be found offensive.
-- Somebody call for an exterminator? - Terran Ghost, Starcraft
Considering that nazi's are for government censorship they can be one in the same. But what gives them power is to be punished. Then they can actually have a reason to be angered, they can then turn around and blame it on "blacks or jews". This is bullshit, but they are being censored and sheep do follow.
Fight censors!
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
First off, let me apologize for the late posting, but I spent last night fooling around on my PC and only noticed this today at work
From the points listed in the parent post, I identify it as American. I wholeheartedly agree that in principle absolute freedom of speech is a good thing, and censorship is a Bad Thing(tm).
BUT! Reality is a different beast than principle. We always run into paradoxes like should we allow freedom to those that advocate taking away that very freedom? Historically, the US has chosen to say yes.
This leads me to the final irony: The German Federal Republic was allowed to come into existence by the Allied Powers (primarily the US) who were very influential in shaping the German constitution. In fact, it was the US that was the primary advocate, during the occupation of Germany, for the total repression of everything to do with Nazism.
So once again we see the paradox: those that value free speech the most have used (and maybe will have to use) repressive power, ie censorship, to defend free speech. Pointing fingers from simplified positions is not the answer to this problem, unfortunately. Show me someone who thinks simple answers are possible, and I'll show you either a fool or a hypocrite.
Sorry for the long and rambling post, just had to get this of my chest.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Traditionally one uses war to enforce your laws/beliefs on someone else's nation. Religious regimes have been seen using terrorism. The United States and Israel uses quick milit. intervention. Most contries uses boycuts and diplomacy.
In some African regimes they go for halves. Jews & Arabs uses the patented "one-cut" method, leaving the boys 99% intact.
In the name of decency, people censor thought, (or lack thereof) in hopes of making "Our american youth stronger." I'm 16, I watch pron, I'm just fine. I can code in perl, c,c++, *tml, and faithfully read slashdot.
I've read into Neo-Nazi's. I've read into the KKK, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to become one. Bottom line: Just because someone says that you can become something, doesn't mean that you will.
If they remove the media that shows us that other options exsist, though, how will we make descisions? After all, we can't, not without options.
This is the declaration of the independence of cyberspace
01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
This is not a problem of free speech. In Germany the facists or "Neo Nazis" are outlaws since having a new legislation in 49. One of the problems now is that our goverment thinks that it could apply local laws to the internet as a whole which is something they underestimate.
The internet routes around censorship.
The approach is completely hopeless but others have done before e.g. the US with their crypto laws.
I think this whole thing is a moot point. Do the Germans actually think keeping people from reading 'Mein Kampf' is going to stop them from being racist? People are going to believe what they want to believe, free information or not. Propaganda only works if people want to believe it. The Chinese gov't can't incite the public if they aren't alread deeply suspicious of the American gov't to begin with. Ditto with America--the whole anti-China lobby in the US draws upon barely disguised 'Yellow Peril' theats dating back to the 50's. They wouldn't work if a large section of Americans weren't already paranoid about China.
I would guess that M-F sex is allowed regardless of age. However, being a (primarily) Islamic country, I imagine that there are also laws (with serious punishments, maybe even death) for sex outside of marriage. Just guessing.
But that would seem to allow a husband to always have relations with his wife, and a woman wouldn't be able to marry without the permission of her father or some such...
But see, one thing the Nazi's did other than kill millions of people is get their message out.
See that's one thing I forgot. Have you heard the term propaganda machine? It was actually the term used by Nazi's (propaganda in other languages doesn't have the stigma it has in english) for a free or 'peoples' radio which was placed in German homes so that they could broadcast their own news. Look it up.
The Nazi's are just one group which should not have a voice. What they stand/stood for is so bass-akwards that it doesn't make any sense.
-They are Socialists by name only (Where the 'Z' comes from). When in fact they are a party of facism. Anyone who took a government class in high school knows that Facism is the radical right where socialism is left, but still right of communism. NOTE: The reason they were called the socialist party was because of Adolf Hitlers rise to power out of union leadership. Although they are not socialist in nature because socialism is supposed to have equal rights for all.
-"it's easy to silence the ideas that are unpopular". This is the view I'm fighting here. It isn't an 'unpopular' idea - it's an idea based on lies and hate.
-The whole Nazi 'trick' was getting power by scapegoating those 'tricky', 'freemasonry' jews. Germany was having trouble without the Jews but they were a minority who did better than the lower class majority. Much like the KKK in America, they were poor white men who were doing bad and noticed that there were all these blacks doing better. Though the KKK's 'trick' has been threats, the Nazi's lied so much that they went beyond threats.
-See Above, their ideology is one of constant war. But yet they have the right to voice their opinions and let this opinion spread? Who wins? I though free speech is supposed to support and protect anyone and everyone?
-Any web site that says I; lets say, walk slumped over because I'm jewish is libelous in my book. Nazi's believed that you can tell a jew from the dimensions of his face. These things aren't only lies, but they are poised to hurt a great number of people's feelings. Not to mentions spread these false beliefs.
-In the name of ethics you basically defend the devil, then whats the point? "Facist should have a voice too!"
Your New Motto: CENSORSHIP STARTED WITH CHILD PORN - WHERE WILL IT END?
Some things are morally wrong, and if you don't think being a Nazi is one of them, then God help you.
If the poor German people don't want to go through another holocaust then lets just let it be that way. They are a sovergn nation, they can censor what they want!
Get your Unix fortune now!
I know what this post is going to do, but hey!
/. readers are anti-semetic.
I want to know why so many
When I put up my first web site I had blue ribbons all over it, animated ones and all that.
But you are talking free speech (which believe it or not isn't a world wide thing) and a Nazi's right to it.
Free speech is an idea, just like some idiot thinks it's a good idea to wipe out a race of people. Free speech didn't become a big thing until the US Constitution. And free speech in the US isn't/wasn't so people could talk about ways to kill people and what not. It was set up so you could say in public this is the way I am - and you didn't have to worry about someone killing you.
And here in the US the Supreme Court ruled that your speech may not impose a risk of injury on another person or you may not use speech to insite violence.
How does someone get off saying that banning Neo-Nazi sites (and other HATE groups) is like living in Nazi Germany? How? Are DoS attacks going to kill anyone?
If someone wanted to ban sites that talked about a new form of government and "hey lets institute it" - then that would be wrong. But if a country wants to keep hate from spreading then it's fine with me. I wouldn't expect a site promoting the sacrifice of Christian babies to stay up for long, so why would I expect a Nazi site to stay up?
-One thing that people don't know about Nazi's is that the party believed in a constant state of war until the supreme people would only be left. Killing not just Jews, but everyone. Even those people who are going to flame me, yes you with the blonde hair and blue eyes.
See people need to know what they are saying when they say any form of censorship is wrong. Censorship exists all around us all the time. Yes; here in the US you have a right to free speech, but you also have the right to be who you want to be and sites which would make you afraid to be who you are infringe on your rights as well.
I don't blame Germans one bit. Nazi's hopefully are in the past lets leave them there.
People think that it's a God given right to be able to express your views. It's a shame you would defend that while knowingly backing a person who would take even one life in the name of hate.
"Linux is better than Windows" is free speech
"Lets all go to CowboyNeal's house with torches" is a crime in the USA
Get your Unix fortune now!
It's been said time and time again "Just because you do not like the message does not mean you have the right to silence the messenger. I wish all governments would understand that and allow honest discourse about all subjects." But indeed, how young is too young? I'm hoping it's obvious that to a community such as /. that naked 7-year-olds is wrong! Please don't forget that everyone has basic human rights that should be upheld, and I hope that those rights will always come before free speech.
If an organization, government or private, publicly decided to begin doing this, the resulting DoS attack from every pissed-off slashdot reader, angst-filled script kiddie, and livid free-speech activist, worldwide, would be enough to cripple (and make an example of) any organization.
It would take only one and it wouldn't ever be an issue again.
Over the weekend, we learned that Germany's Minister of the Interior, Otto Schily, was thinking...
It doesn't say, anywhere, that the "we" refers to people in the US. Because there was a mention of the US government doesn't mean that the assumption was made that all readers were from the US.
Although, Nazis are the scum of the Earth, next to commies and terrorists, and DoSing their sites would be a good thing, I would not want to government to do that. Freedom of speech there, and we all have it, even backwoods bitches like nazis.
But, if we did it ourselves over in Germany, nothing really possibly could happen, because who could support the exteremists? What about here? You MIGHT get a slap on the wrist, only for the cause of law and order
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
So what happens when traffic gets insane and packet loss is at 97% from contries buying up pipe like crazy just so they can ping -f something they don't like?
-Polyhead- Jpop/Anime Otaku.. and geek in General
I notice how most people want their rights and their "Freedom of Speech" yet many find it inhumane for someone to possess opinions that differ from their own.
I'm far from a racism since, and have friends from all walks of life, including those with racist views, and while they don't appeal to me in any fashion, those with ideas other than my own still deserve the same amount of respect I would ask for to uphold my freedom to say what I want.
How can you honestly think in terms of fairness to say "My ideas are right" when it may be ethical to you but not to others. Sure I despise racism, sites but I will say this, they are entitled to their own opinions and the same right to express it, as I can express my opinions, etc.
On the subject of Denials of Service, I particularly don't buy that notion any government would partake in that for those reasons. I could however see a U.S. --> China DoS showdown between moronic kiddiots, but I can't see the government wasting their time, and money doing this.
Side note: For those into studying the effects of Denials of Services, and higher protocol based attacks, I wrote a paper on it a while back addressing attacks, fixes, but never finished it. Who knows maybe I'll pick up on it again some time soon
360 degrees of Karma
First it will be the Nazis. Then it will be the Ku Klux Klan. Next, it will be the pro-abortionist, then the anti-abortionist, then the gay advocates, then ..., and when they finally stop finding anything controversial to go after, it will the Jews, followed by the Muslims, followed by the Christians, followed by the revolutionaries, then right-winged presidential and senatorial candidates. The list will go on and on. I don't like Nazis anymore then the next person but if you take one person's speach away because they are not "moral" then you leave a gap open for your own speach to be taken away. To protect your own speach, you must protect others, even people you hate.
-----
You stupid bastard, you don't have no arms left. It's just a flesh wound.
boycuts? that's just barbaric! anyway: in half or in quarters?
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
Zimmerman(n) is a very common name in Germany and has no 'jewish' connotations, as you're eager to imply.
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
Yeah, like what? 'Dachau - I've been there!' stickers and mugs? Does denying a horrendous crime make life any easier for you? But then, there's a whole industry of holocaust-denial based around the works of David Irving and Aaron Finkelstein nowadays...
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
Correct me please, but weren't "you" attacking Belgrade in defense of the volkish Albanians back then and not Kosovo? Maybe you better spend as much attention to semantics as you do to grammar...
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
Read some history. First, you really believe anyone chooses their family name at will? Did you choose your own? Then, the names you mention stem from medieval times when jews were denied access to most professions apart from finance and jewelry, so naturally you'll end up with a larger percentage of persons of mosaic ancestry in those branches. But I won't get into any discussion about that because an antisemite will find a place for any argument within his irrational rant, paranoid as it is. The second fact that you don't seem to be aware of is the nazis' renaming of large amounts of people following the execution of the racist Nuremberg laws, assigning them more 'jewish sounding' family and also first names like Israel and Sarah in order to make them easily recognizable at a glance at their papers. And a lot of those people wouldn't have thought of themselves as being jewish in any respect before that point in time.
Please consider the appropriate sequence: 1. research, 2. think, 3. post. Thank you.
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
Come again? Misplaced your glasses or something?
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
It also used to be a mess to get out - you typically had to go to your local priest or similar and hand him a statement saying you didn't wish to be a member anymore, and frequently they'd be upset about it and try to convince you not to.
Now, however, it is very easy.
The issue of separation keeps resurfacing at regular intervals, often when the debate starts raging about whether or not gay and lesbian priests are supposed to have the same rights as others, or similar issues where the conservative leadership of the church is heavily at odds both with Norwegian law and with the people in general.
Sweden has taken some steps towards separation, in that the local leadership of the state church is actually elected. A while back a group of atheists or agnostics (don't remembers which) actually almost managed to gain control of the church leadership in some counties, because most people don't give a damn about who contols the church.
Sweden is clearly the Scandinavian country where the debate seems to be least heated, and where it seems the path is pretty clear towards separation, and where there has even been talks about deciding on a specific year (don't know if anything was agreed on with regards to that) for separation or for a vote on it (I don't follow Swedish politics much ... :-)
The issue of separation is important not the least because the state church get advantages none others do: In Norway the state church can count as members anyone who has not actively registered as non members, or that haven't registered as a member of another recognized religious or atheist organization, and that have parents that are members of the church.
The other organizations, on the other hand, have to get the membership of the child reaffirmed at the age of 15, and effectively have to require membership dues or similar methods of getting a legally recognizable recognition of your membership to get money support from the government.
The state church doesn't have to care about their membership numbers to get money, either. The way the money allocation is done is that the government decides how much to give the state church, then divides that sum by the number of people that haven't left the church, and that is the amount of money that the other organizations will get per registered member.
This effectively mean that because the church has seriously bloated membership numbers because most people don't care, the state church get a lot more money per active member than the other organizations get.
The state church also have special legal privileges (at least in Norway, don't know about the rest of the Scandinavian countries). For instance the king (and possibly the prime minister?) and at least half the cabinet has to be members of the state church.
In many cases they may represent organizations that do so offline, or hidden for view, or they may represent "research institutes" and similar that claim to do unbiased research on nazi ideology, but that acts as propaganda fronts. Some of them will take great care to avoid anything that can be construed as inciting to violence or racial hatred, and leave that for private conversation with people interested in their sites.
That does not mean they don't pose a threat.
But it does mean that you suddenly have to go much farther in censoring ideans and thought if you want to stop them.
Germany does, in many cases, provided it is nazi material. Most other countries do not. Many countries have special provisions for nazi propaganda, but most of them are specific enough to only prevent material or manifestations of ideas that clearly incite violence or racial hatred, and allow material that present, discuss, or even can be interpreted as propaganda for, nazism to go through.
One could discuss whether those laws should be stricted, but there's a slipperly slope from censoring hate groups to censoring legitimate political activity, and the further down you go, the harder it is to stop.
I posted and all I got was this stupid sig
Well, ok. If somebody have anything nasty on their site, the government go and shut it off...
But, when the owners of the sites,and their friends go to the counterattack?
Who'll win?
at some point this becomes international terrorism and not censorship.
if the us were to flood dutch sites, i'm sure that it wouldn't count as just censorship.
all that these neonazis have to do is move their server, and the german government is probably unable to do very much without risking international relationships.
this may have been one of the things that kept them from pursuing this route.
Bored with your projects?
Try Einsteinium
I notice that the various Christian dialects in America are very anti-gay. They promote hatred of homosexuals the same way that Nazis would. Here is where they are similar. They hate gays and don't think they have a place on Earth. Personally, I have no problem with gays and I don't understand why anyone should.
And, surely, if a gang beats your head in they must think you are a worthless human being.
I'm sure that contries' laws would disagree with my opinions but that's what they are - my opinions. I don't tell people to think the way I think and, quite frankly, this would be a wierd world if they did. I'm also sure that a religious opinion - whatever it is - is more acceptable than a far right-wing opinion. But that's because (as Karl Marx said) "Religion is the opiate of the people". I say that religion has killed more people than it has saved due to the hate that it promotes to other groups. Look at the situation in Israel and the hate and the suffering that it has caused.
But I digress...
My point was made at the beginning. I think they are the same - or at least similar - because of the underlying motivation and the methods of promoting opinion.
Claric
--
There's no problem that cannot be solved with a suitable amount of high explosives
You think of the number of people who have died for freedom of speech (about the government and stuff - I'm not really clued up on this stuff) in wars. How would they feel if they died to that some misguided idiot can publish Nazi worshipping literature. In any form.
The flip side is that freedom of speech enables John Skinhead to spout Nazi propagander if he wishes - just as God-loving bible bashers are allowed to preach that we're all going to Hell. Just as I'm able to proclame my atheism and contempt for hate-mongers - as God-loving bible-bashers generally are.
However, I also believe that people can make up their own mind. It's not like hate pages are two-clicks away. You search for it. The fear is that these pages will coax people into forming similar opinions of hate. In my opinion if they are reading those kind of pages then your attitude and opinion is already that way inclined.
Either that or you want to see for yourself just how misguided people who waste their time publishing hate material.
So, in conclusion my point is that if you want to hate blacks, Jews, Gays, whites, minorities, majorities, women, etc you will, regardless of what web pages or literature you read. If you are easily swayed by hate material, surely you can be swayed the other way...
Anyone agree ?
Claric
--
There's no problem that cannot be solved with a suitable amount of high explosives
"
If they say that, in their opinion, the Jewish Holocaust has been exaggerated, they'll be put
in jail.
"
Wrong.
The recent law that was passed on this issue was a "denial" law. It is strictly forbidden to deny the existence of the holocaust. However, some facts are still unknown and there's no law against questioning the unknowns.
You seem to forget that the Nazis were remarkably good record keepers. They were quite proud of what they were doing, and we have photos and videos taken by the Nazis themselves carrying out the deeds.
SHIT - I've just been trolled. ARGH! Me of all people...
THL.
--
Keeping
'like these or these'?
No, the evidence I've seen is nothing like those.
I'll admit, some of the first photos you present look bogus, but they aren't the evidence I've seen, which has none of the flaws pointed out for your images. The page uses what is known as a 'straw man' argument.
Me: I've seen photographic evidence
You: Look - this photographic evidence is bogus
Me: And?
Now the second page. Tish, I'd be embarassed if I were you. That is a shambles, it has no evidence to back up either its or your point.
Try harder next time.
THL.
--
Keeping
The most important thing about selective censorship (which is what we are discussing here) is that you need to determine who decides what is offensive. You can not take a majority vote, as that can be corrupted easily via the use of propoganda itself. You can't choose one man as his descisions may not be unbiased. This is all far too spiritual if you ask me.
For example, I find scat very offensive (and if you don't know what it is, click on the link, but be warned - it's not nice - the name of the link when you hover over it should be a big enough clue). However, other people find it highly arousing. Should I deny consenting adults their right to indulge in whatever they wish to, or to share pictures with others? If they are both consenting and capable of making their own minds up, why should I have the right to censor them?
In addition, if you tell somebody they can't do something or they can't believe something, they will actively persue those actions or thoughts in order to undermine you. What do you think neo-Nazism is all about? You really think that they're doing it because they really think Jews are bad people? No, it's because they know it pisses off the establishment they hate so much. Same thought processes that teenagers who don't get along with their parents smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol and listen to heavy metal - it pisses off their parents and makes them belong to a group that is in the same position as them.
All in all, selective censorship is a very bad thing. any government minister who seeks to censor ideas, thoughts, or opinions is no better than Hitler himself. The reason why we as a society see ourselves as better than Hitler's society is that we allow that freedom of consenting adults who do not actively harm others, whilst protecting the innocent and those who can't protect themselves (i.e. children). To descend into this quagmire is unthinkable.
This line intentionally left here to annoy you.
how much of the rest of the posting was made up in an attempt to be funny? never mind, /.ers will just absorb it and repeat it in later postings.
really, this issue of internet free speech is a doozy, always gets the punters posting. My Rights, they all squawk. i'd wager very few would know which of their rights were being upheld ot infringed at any moment - it's just some cant to advertise their "radical" attitudes.
You hate Nazi's but you hate government censorship more? one poster wrote. Then you are a fool. people die and suffer under nazi attitudes to this day and they deserve better understanding than the whinging poses of pimply American students. Naziism is a real world issue, a Hate Crime, not just backstory for a computer game. It warrants criminal prosecution and anything else that governments and individuals can do to stamp it out.
When the Nazis came to power in Germany, (and wherever else they've gained a foothold), they' did it with the collusion of a lot of people who thought it was best if they washed their hands of action. These people were called Appeasers. They talked a lot about Rights of Expression also. Get this - it doesn't apply to criminals, and Nazis and racists are criminals.
I think the thing to remember here is that germany has always (since the end of WWII that is) been censoring any kind of (neo)nazi-propaganda... you may not even display swastikas in public (unless it's for "educational" purposes). The reasoning behind this is that naziism is trying to destroy the current democratic system. You also cannot form a political party with a stated goal of turning germany into anything else but a democracy. Considering this I think it is undertandable that the government would like to outlaw nazi-propaganda on the net, too. Many people in germany say that this is because the "Weimar" constitution, which was very liberal, helped Hitler to come to power, and obviously nobody wants to see this happen again. The problem here is that there has never (again since the end of WWII) been an absolute freedom of speech (like the US like to believe they have) in Germany.
(Personally I think they shouldn't be censoring at all, but if they have to maybe they should consider blocking those sites from being viewed from germany instead of DOSing them so they don't conflict with other countries' legal systems)
Government endoresed hack attacks would seem to make Germany a "rouge" nation, and to protect the integrity of the Net, it would be a shame if the US ISP's had to refuse accepting / forwarding packets to Germany.
The article seems to be tranlated in a wrong way and not completely shown , so your agitation might be misplaced here ...
But the idea behind this behavior seems not to be *that*reprehensible to me . Look , Nazis are extremly right wing organized and diposed towards to protect and force their attitude / convictions , this means that they would make use of violence and/or incite ppl to follow their ideology. Now the law comes into play :
freedom , even freedom of speech has its limits on the freedom of others .
It`s proven that a *huge* group of violent/criminal/fanatic ppl (like Nazis) will allways restrict their needs on the peace and freedom of those who are not involved in their diology and/or have minor power.
And with the background of Germany`s history , the german court will allways see Nazis and right wing parties in a sceptical way.
well, aint that just a bunch or something or other. censorship or mass murdering psychopaths..hmm...tough choice. always sarcastic - Id say that nazis take the cake, but since we arent in danger of another WW with a hitler wannabe, id have to agree with ConsumedByTV.
why won't you find something better to do?
I don't know. You tell me. Petty jealousy?
You don't even know who I am... but if you did, you'd be suprised.
Does it mean that no M-F sex is allowed at all, or that all M-F is allowed regardless of the age of participants?
Here's all you've ever wanted to know about the age of consent around the world.
unfortunately with this free speech thing
you gota take the good with the bad.
What if in 20 years the MOB mentality of the
US is hard right wing socialists who want to ban
everything from the net that contradicts there
own short sighted views (oww wait that's already happening). There are 2 sides to the coin
and if that means freedom of speech for me&you
then that means freedom of speech for Neo-Nazi's
too.
***kgbFXzero***